Namespaces
Variants
Actions

Difference between revisions of "Talk:intro/abstraction"

From cppreference.com
(reply)
 
(One intermediate revision by one user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
  
 
--[[User:Rightfold|Rightfold]] ([[User talk:Rightfold|talk]]) 07:14, 19 October 2013 (PDT)
 
--[[User:Rightfold|Rightfold]] ([[User talk:Rightfold|talk]]) 07:14, 19 October 2013 (PDT)
 +
 +
:While I certainly wouldn't call if- and for-statements abstractions, I agree that abstraction is not really related to classes. I guess it would be a good idea to move it after the part about the STL: At that point the reader knows the important techniques to implement reasonable abstraction himself and we can point to the abstraction-mechanisms inside the standard-library as examples of how it can be done well and what are the advantages of it. --[[User:FJW|FJW]] ([[User talk:FJW|talk]]) 10:36, 19 October 2013 (PDT)
 +
 +
::Yes, it's certainly a good idea to show the reader standard library first. --[[User:P12|P12]] 15:47, 19 October 2013 (PDT)

Latest revision as of 15:47, 19 October 2013

It’s not entirely clear to me why “abstraction” is listed under “classes” on the tutorials page. Even simple language constructs such as if-statements and for-loops are abstractions, though they are not related to classes at all.

--Rightfold (talk) 07:14, 19 October 2013 (PDT)

While I certainly wouldn't call if- and for-statements abstractions, I agree that abstraction is not really related to classes. I guess it would be a good idea to move it after the part about the STL: At that point the reader knows the important techniques to implement reasonable abstraction himself and we can point to the abstraction-mechanisms inside the standard-library as examples of how it can be done well and what are the advantages of it. --FJW (talk) 10:36, 19 October 2013 (PDT)
Yes, it's certainly a good idea to show the reader standard library first. --P12 15:47, 19 October 2013 (PDT)